The uncomfortable truth is this: antisemitism will not be eradicated.
It is too deeply embedded in history, too adaptable, and too useful to those who seek power through division.
The more realistic goal is not elimination but containment. The task before us is to push antisemitism back into latency, to minimize its reach, its legitimacy, and its consequences.
To do that, we must first understand what we are up against; and currently, the threat is evolving faster than our response.
Antisemitism is no longer confined by geography or ideology. It moves across borders, platforms, and political systems with ease. Like mercury, it slips through cracks, evading traditional containment methods.
Treating it as a purely national issue is a strategic mistake. This is a transnational challenge that demands a coordinated international response, comparable in scale and seriousness to efforts against nuclear proliferation.
Yet even that framing does not fully capture the urgency, because the most significant battleground today is not political but generational.
Several structural trends are accelerating the spread and normalization of antisemitism.
In large parts of Europe, political incentives are shifting. Demographic changes and electoral considerations have led segments of the political class to adopt rhetoric that, whether subtly or overtly, undermines Jewish legitimacy. As British political leader Kemi Badenoch has warned, there is a growing reluctance to confront difficult truths, replaced instead by moral ambiguity and rhetorical drift that emboldens those who seek to marginalize Jews.
At the same time, in parts of the former Soviet bloc, antisemitism remains deeply ingrained, not merely as prejudice but as a tool of historical distortion and political control. It serves both to obscure local collaboration in the Holocaust and to reshape narratives of liberation in ways that diminish Jewish suffering and agency.
Nevertheless, these long-standing patterns, while dangerous, are no longer the most urgent front.
That front is youth radicalization.
Recent data paint a troubling picture. Across Europe and beyond, youth are increasingly drawn into extremist ecosystems. According to Europol’s 2025 terrorism report, minors are not only participating in radical networks but actively organizing, radicalizing one another, and even planning attacks.
Nearly 30% of terrorism-related arrests in the EU in 2024 involved individuals aged 12 to 20, with the overwhelming majority linked to jihadist extremism.
This is not a marginal phenomenon; it is a systemic failure.
Traditional institutions, families, schools, and community frameworks, are struggling to keep pace with the psychological and technological realities shaping this generation. Adolescents, particularly those aged 12 to 16, are uniquely vulnerable. At this stage, identity is fluid, moral frameworks are still forming, and the search for meaning is intense.
Extremism offers simple answers to complex questions. It provides belonging, purpose, and recognition. And increasingly, it does so more effectively than mainstream society.
What has changed is not just who is being radicalized, but how.
Radicalization no longer requires physical networks or even deliberate engagement. It is embedded in the architecture of the digital world.
Social media algorithms are designed to maximize engagement, not truth. They guide users from moderate content toward more extreme material, creating echo chambers where compromise is seen as weakness and nuance as betrayal.
Layered on top of this is a newer and more powerful force: artificial intelligence.
Large language models are transforming the nature of influence. They do not simply broadcast ideology; they engage. They simulate empathy and build relationships. Available 24 hours a day, they function as personalized “digital gurus,” capable of guiding vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme paths.
Research suggests that AI-generated content can be more persuasive than human-produced messaging, particularly when users are unaware of its origin.
This creates what might be called the “algorithmic hypnotist”: a system capable of replicating the psychological pull of a charismatic leader, but at scale, and with precision targeting.
These systems analyze digital footprints, posts, likes, and activity patterns, to identify vulnerabilities such as loneliness, identity confusion, or a sense of injustice. They then tailor messaging in real time, reinforcing engagement and deepening radicalization.
In some cases, this process is entirely automated.
The result is a hybrid model of radicalization, combining human intent with machine efficiency.
Even more alarming is the emergence of “cult-like” digital communities that actively prey on minors.
Groups such as Network 764 have demonstrated how these ecosystems operate. They identify vulnerable teenagers, establish trust, and gradually exert control through psychological manipulation and blackmail. Victims, often between the ages of nine and 17, are coerced into self-harm, violence, or deeper involvement in extremist networks.
These are not abstract ideological movements. They are operational systems of recruitment and control.
Law enforcement agencies are struggling to keep up. The FBI alone is reportedly conducting hundreds of active investigations into such networks, with arrests spanning multiple countries.
The scale of the threat is increasingly comparable to a public health crisis.
IF THE nature of the threat has changed, so, too, must our response.
The traditional model, focused on surveillance, prohibition, and punishment, is necessary but insufficient. It addresses symptoms, not causes.
What is required is a paradigm shift.
First, we must move from a framework of “struggle” to one of “competition for meaning.” The goal is not simply to suppress extremist ideas, but to offer more compelling alternatives. Young people must be given pathways to identity, purpose, and belonging that are richer, more complex, and ultimately more fulfilling than what extremism provides.
Second, we must recognize that this is fundamentally a psychological challenge. Preventing radicalization requires investment in mental health, education, and mentorship. It demands a workforce trained to engage with identity formation, group dynamics, and narrative construction.
Third, the digital space must be treated as a primary arena of socialization. Attempts to regulate or block content, while sometimes necessary, are not enough. What is needed is an active, positive presence: high-quality content, supportive online communities, and digital literacy as a core life skill.
Fourth, interventions must focus on the critical window of middle adolescence. This is where identity is formed, and where the greatest impact can be achieved.
Fifth, policy must be driven by evidence, not ideology. Success should be measured not only by the absence of violence, but by positive indicators such as resilience, empathy, and social integration.
There are models that demonstrate success.
Targeted interventions, when well-designed, can have a measurable impact. At the Anna Freud Center in the UK, structured engagement led by skilled educators has been shown to significantly reduce aggressive and radical tendencies among at-risk adolescents in a matter of hours.
More broadly, countries such as Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have shown that addressing basic socioeconomic needs is one of the most effective barriers to radicalization.
This is where the concept of HEJ (houses, education, jobs) becomes critical.
Young people who see a future for themselves are far less likely to seek meaning in destructive ideologies. Stability, opportunity, and dignity are not just economic goals; they are security imperatives.
Ultimately, the fight against antisemitism cannot be separated from the broader fight against extremism. The two are intertwined. Efforts to counter one reinforce efforts to counter the other.
This is not a task for governments alone. It requires coordination across society: educators, families, community leaders, religious institutions, and even influencers, both macro and micro, who can connect with young audiences in authentic ways.
Family and social networks, in particular, remain the strongest buffer against radicalization. Strengthening these bonds may be more effective than any top-down intervention.
Antisemitism thrives in environments of instability, ignorance, and alienation.
It can only be contained by building societies that offer the opposite: stability, knowledge, and belonging.
That means investing in young people – not just as a moral obligation but as a strategic necessity. It means embracing new technologies not only as threats but as tools for positive engagement.
Most importantly, it means recognizing that the fight for the next generation is the decisive front. We may not be able to eliminate antisemitism, but we can ensure that it does not define the future.
The choice is not whether this battle will be fought; it is whether we will fight it effectively.
The writer is president of the European Jewish Congress, the representative body of European Jewish communities.